Common Ancestry and the Bible--Discerning Where to Draw the Line | The Institute for Creation Research
Common Ancestry and the Bible--Discerning Where to Draw the Line

In last month's column, the Institute for Creation Research life sciences team explained the first of several key research questions in origins biology--the nature and meaning of taxonomy. This month we discuss the question of the extent and limits of common ancestry.

What is the origin of the species that are alive on earth today? The hypothesis of evolution claims that all life descended from one common ancestor (or a few) over the past three to four billion years. In contrast, Scripture clearly teaches the supernatural creation of distinct creatures in six days roughly 6,000 years ago. How do we distinguish scientifically between these two models?

Before you answer, remember that the scriptural model also implies common ancestry--but a limited common ancestry. Clearly, Genesis teaches that all humans alive today are descended from Adam and Eve, and that humans do not share ancestry with apes. But what about animals and plants? How do we know which species share parentage and which ones have distinct Genesis 1 ancestors?

Determining ancestry in the plant and animal realm hinges largely on one critical term, min, the Hebrew word that is usually translated "kind" in the English Bible. If you've followed creationist writings for a while, you have probably come across the phrase "reproduce after their kinds," a term used to describe the view that kinds are reproductively isolated from one another. However, some have questioned the connection between reproductive compatibility and the word "kind" and have suggested that kind denotes a set of morphological traits, such as anatomical features or physiology. One scientist has even postulated that kind refers to some sort of archetypal pattern God used to construct creatures during the creation week. Which is it? Does kind refer to reproductive compatibility, archetype, or morphology? Might it refer to a fourth set of yet undetermined criteria?

Understanding the precise meaning of kind has enormous practical implications for creationist biology. If kind refers to archetype, discerning common ancestry suddenly becomes exceedingly difficult. How can we know what the archetype was in Genesis 1 from which modern creatures derived their traits? Conversely, if morphology is the meaning of kind, creationist classification becomes slightly easier but also somewhat imprecise--how do you quantify morphological traits reliably? Finally, if kind refers to reproductive compatibility, a simple cross should effectively delineate creatures of distinct genealogies. Hence, elucidating the meaning of the Hebrew term is critical to knowing how to apply the scriptural concept of limited common ancestry to modern biology.

The ICR life sciences team is currently engaged in a study of the word min to find the answers to these critical questions. Together, our studies of the precise scriptural implications for common ancestry, as well as our studies of the nature and meaning of taxonomy (see last month's column), should serve a dual purpose: Identify the scientific holes in the evolutionary model and buttress the creation explanation for biology. Expect the results to be fruitful. There is one right answer to the question of the origin of the species, and the Bible gives us the accurate foundation from which to search for truth.

While the word "kind" is probably the most critical scriptural term in the arena of origins biology, it is not the only relevant scriptural concept to the nature, speed, and limits of biological change. See next month's column for more on how much change is permissible in light of Genesis 1-11!

* Dr. Jeanson is Research Associate and received his Ph.D. in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University.

Cite this article: Jeanson, N. 2010. Common Ancestry and the Bible--Discerning Where to Draw the Line. Acts & Facts. 39 (6): 6.

The Latest
NEWS
Human Genome 20th Anniversary—Junk DNA Hits the Trash
The first rough drafts of the human genome were reported in 2001 (one in the private sector and one in the public sector).1-2 Since then, after...

NEWS
Bacterial Proteins Use Quantum Mechanics
Researchers have found a dimmer switch inside a protein. It tunes the protein’s configuration to take advantage of quantum mechanics during photosynthesis....

NEWS
Dr. Bill Cooper, ICR’s Adjunct Professor, Now in Glory
Earlier last month on March the 9th, Dr. William R. Cooper, ICR’s Master Faculty (known to ICR-SOBA’s faculty as “Dr. Bill” since...

NEWS
Inside April 2021 Acts & Facts
How will ICR expand biblical creation education this year? How do fossilized fish and land creatures confirm Genesis history? Does recent research support...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Bees
You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with ICR’s special Creation Kids learning...

ACTS & FACTS
Pleasure in Our Purpose
Eric Liddell was one of the most famous athletes of the 20th century and perhaps the greatest that Scotland ever produced. An international rugby player,...

APOLOGETICS
Beware Sinkholes and Other Failing Foundations
The sudden falling of some Christian schools can be compared to tiankengs, the geological term used for sinkholes that are at least 300 feet deep.1,2...

ACTS & FACTS
The Painted Desert: Fossils in Flooded Mud Flats
Brian Thomas, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D. The Painted Desert stretches across 120 miles of northern Arizona. Its sedimentary rocks show bright...

ACTS & FACTS
Does Recent Research Support Human Evolution?
In 1997, the Institute for Creation Research ran an Acts & Facts article on the lack of compelling evidence regarding our supposed evolution from...

ACTS & FACTS
Building a Perfectly Optimal Flying Machine
For thousands of years, people have dreamed of flying because they witnessed birds and knew it was possible. Inspired by a study of birds, the Wright...